PURPOSE: To propose a new method to estimate lung mean dose (LMD) using technetium-99m labeled macroaggregated albumin ((99m)Tc-MAA) single photon emission CT (SPECT)/CT for (90)Yttrium radioembolization of liver tumors and to compare the LMD estimated using SPECT/CT with clinical estimates of LMD using planar gamma scintigraphy (PS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Images of 71 patients who had SPECT/CT and PS images of (99m)Tc-MAA acquired before TheraSphere radioembolization of liver cancer were analyzed retrospectively. LMD was calculated from the PS-based lung shunt assuming a lung mass of 1 kg and 50 Gy per GBq of injected activity shunted to the lung. For the SPECT/CT-based estimate, the LMD was calculated with the activity concentration and lung volume derived from SPECT/CT. The effect of attenuation correction and the patient's breathing on the calculated LMD was studied with the SPECT/CT. With these effects correctly taken into account in a more rigorous fashion, we compared the LMD calculated with SPECT/CT with the LMD calculated with PS. RESULTS: The mean dose to the central region of the lung leads to a more accurate estimate of LMD. Inclusion of the lung region around the diaphragm in the calculation leads to an overestimate of LMD due to the misregistration of the liver activity to the lung from the patient's breathing. LMD calculated based on PS is a poor predictor of the actual LMD. For the subpopulation with large lung shunt, the mean overestimation from the PS method for the lung shunt was 170%. CONCLUSIONS: A new method of calculating the LMD for TheraSphere and SIR-Spheres radioembolization of liver cancer based on (99m)Tc-MAA SPECT/CT is presented. The new method provides a more accurate estimate of radiation risk to the lungs. For patients with a large lung shunt calculated from PS, a recalculation of LMD based on SPECT/CT is recommended.
PURPOSE: To propose a new method to estimate lung mean dose (LMD) using technetium-99m labeled macroaggregated albumin ((99m)Tc-MAA) single photon emission CT (SPECT)/CT for (90)Yttrium radioembolization of liver tumors and to compare the LMD estimated using SPECT/CT with clinical estimates of LMD using planar gamma scintigraphy (PS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Images of 71 patients who had SPECT/CT and PS images of (99m)Tc-MAA acquired before TheraSphere radioembolization of liver cancer were analyzed retrospectively. LMD was calculated from the PS-based lung shunt assuming a lung mass of 1 kg and 50 Gy per GBq of injected activity shunted to the lung. For the SPECT/CT-based estimate, the LMD was calculated with the activity concentration and lung volume derived from SPECT/CT. The effect of attenuation correction and the patient's breathing on the calculated LMD was studied with the SPECT/CT. With these effects correctly taken into account in a more rigorous fashion, we compared the LMD calculated with SPECT/CT with the LMD calculated with PS. RESULTS: The mean dose to the central region of the lung leads to a more accurate estimate of LMD. Inclusion of the lung region around the diaphragm in the calculation leads to an overestimate of LMD due to the misregistration of the liver activity to the lung from the patient's breathing. LMD calculated based on PS is a poor predictor of the actual LMD. For the subpopulation with large lung shunt, the mean overestimation from the PS method for the lung shunt was 170%. CONCLUSIONS: A new method of calculating the LMD for TheraSphere and SIR-Spheres radioembolization of liver cancer based on (99m)Tc-MAA SPECT/CT is presented. The new method provides a more accurate estimate of radiation risk to the lungs. For patients with a large lung shunt calculated from PS, a recalculation of LMD based on SPECT/CT is recommended.
Authors: Mattijs Elschot; Johannes F W Nijsen; Marnix G E H Lam; Maarten L J Smits; Jip F Prince; Max A Viergever; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Bernard A Zonnenberg; Hugo W A M de Jong Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-05-13 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Mohammad Elsayed; Bernard Cheng; Minzhi Xing; Ila Sethi; David Brandon; David M Schuster; Zachary Bercu; James Galt; Bruce Barron; Nima Kokabi Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Yung Hsiang Kao; Butch M Magsombol; Ying Toh; Kiang Hiong Tay; Pierce Kh Chow; Anthony Sw Goh; David Ce Ng Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2014-06-29 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Arthur J A T Braat; Jip F Prince; Rob van Rooij; Rutger C G Bruijnen; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Marnix G E H Lam Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-08-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jens M Theysohn; Marcus Ruhlmann; Stefan Müller; Alexander Dechene; Jan Best; Johannes Haubold; Lale Umutlu; Guido Gerken; Andreas Bockisch; Thomas C Lauenstein Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 3.240